No.....it may have been his body double on Fox news!:idunno: It's kinda like Ripley's---Believe It Or Not.

 

I really don't care what is believed about what he said,or didn't say. I just hope China doesn't cut out our allowance before our country gets back to some kind of normal operation. I do know he is comparing himself to Lincoln, and FDR(New Deal), (according to history, two of the best), and he hasn't even taken office yet. This country lost 600,000 people under Lincoln , and the New Deal ( according to history of economics) was actually over before the U S came out of that one. I'm not sure this country wants to revisit either of those times. He has included in his plans (and that also has been reported several times on the news) $600 million dollars to buy new vehicles for the Government fleet. I really don't understand how that will help.

 

The above statements are accurate to the best of my recollection. Or not. Your choice !:thumb:

So ... you have no proof of Obama making that statement.

 

Case closed.

Obama didn't say actually rednecks. What he said was in a speech in California and was talking about small town Pennsylvania. What he said was. "...they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them..."

 

There is no doubt that he is for more gun control. Things that he has said and done in the past prove that. ie the 500% tax proposal on ammo.

I have a question. I'm not accusing anybody on here of anything. I know people who hate guns, think they're evil, who don't understand why anybody needs to own a gun. They insist that we need more and more and more laws to control guns. But, they also insist they're not anti-gun.

 

Why won't people admit that they are anti-gun?

Didn't he say that ?? Assume ?? Well maybe you didn't hear him say that !

 

This forum requires proof for such accusations. A link will do. Let us know when you get one.

No.....it may have been his body double on Fox news!:idunno: It's kinda like Ripley's---Believe It Or Not.

 

I really don't care what is believed about what he said,or didn't say. I just hope China doesn't cut out our allowance before our country gets back to some kind of normal operation. I do know he is comparing himself to Lincoln, and FDR(New Deal), (according to history, two of the best), and he hasn't even taken office yet. This country lost 600,000 people under Lincoln , and the New Deal ( according to history of economics) was actually over before the U S came out of that one. I'm not sure this country wants to revisit either of those times. He has included in his plans (and that also has been reported several times on the news) $600 million dollars to buy new vehicles for the Government fleet. I really don't understand how that will help.

 

The above statements are accurate to the best of my recollection. Or not. Your choice !:thumb:

I think that you might be confusing a statement by that liberal brain trust, John Murtha, who did call his own constituents "rednecks," with Barack Hussein Obama who only implied that people living in small towns are rednecks. The intent and arrogance of the two statements were the same but Obama is just more articulate that Murtha.

I have a question. I'm not accusing anybody on here of anything. I know people who hate guns, think they're evil, who don't understand why anybody needs to own a gun. They insist that we need more and more and more laws to control guns. But, they also insist they're not anti-gun.

 

Why won't people admit that they are anti-gun?

 

 

I assume you're speaking of me as I have been accused of being anti-gun despite my comments to the contrary. The phrases you used are exaggerated versions of some of my comments.

 

I'm not anti-gun, so there's no reason for me to say that I am. There's nothing to admit.

I assume you're speaking of me as I have been accused of being anti-gun despite my comments to the contrary. The phrases you used are exaggerated versions of some of my comments.

 

I'm not anti-gun, so there's no reason for me to say that I am. There's nothing to admit.

 

Nope. I'm speaking about people I know personally. I've never heard you say guns are evil. I know you don't agree with the need (at least for yourself), but you also believe that law abiding citizens should be able to have them. We just greatly disagree on the amount of control the government should have.

It has been brought to my attention that I may have made an innacurate and erroneous claim in post 338. In the last sentence of the post, the third and fourth words should be replaced with "someone". I hope that clears up any ill will represented by my misquote I used from the tv news that may also have been innacurate and erroneous, and made by someone other that the implied. Therefore, I hope to remove any offence created by these words. If you took offence to these words, I hope you feel better now.................................I know I sure do.:thumb:

^^^ Isn't that kinda like a disclaimer?..............After the fact !:sssh:

 

Just kidding !:thumb:

Another bad analogy? You are batting 1.000 today! :lol:

 

The difference is that the confiscation of guns in which guns have been confiscated have seen an increase in gun control laws prior to their ultimate confiscation. If there is no registration, then the government would be required to conduct house to house searches to confiscate guns. Are you arguing that large scale registration does not make confiscation easier, and therefor more likely?

 

 

I am pointing out that we have large scale registration of many types of possessions (highway vehicles, boats, private aircraft, real estate property) for tax assessment and law enforcement purposes. That has not led to the widespread, indiscriminant confiscation others are implying would happen if gun registration were mandated.

Edited January 20, 200917 yr by H

Please give me proof that it will not. We've seen it elsewhere.

 

 

Gun confiscation cannot happen under our Constitution without an amendment. My argument was that this more restrictive regulation (in and of itself) will not necessarily lead to confiscation. Perhaps I should have said that the proposed regulation is not equivalent to a Constitutional amendment, and therefore, even if enacted into law, the proposal cannot be used as a justification for the indiscrimate confiscation of guns now or in the future.

I am pointing out that we have large scale registration of many types of possessions (highway vehicles, boats, private aircraft, real estate property) for tax assessment and law enforcement purposes. That has not led to the widespread, indiscriminant confiscation that you're implying would happen if gun registration were mandated.

You have mischaracterized what I have said in this thread about confiscation. I have explicitly and repeatedly explained that outright confiscation is not necessary in order for the anti-gun nuts to accomplish their goals.

 

Onerous regulations and punitive tax rates, imposed in conjunction with a liberal Supreme Court, will be almost as effective at reducing legal gun ownership rates. A 500 percent increase in the federal excise tax on ammunition, which President Obama proposed in 1999, would be a good start.

 

Gun control nuts do not have the political support to repeal the Second Amendment, so they will continue to harrass gun owners in the courts and legislative bodies across the country.